Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
"Ryan":2goql4ja wrote:Anyone feel like working out what exactly needs to be on the stats pages? I made some mock up pages for Mike a while back, but I’m not really into this type of thing. I’d rather have someone who knows what should be on each page to draw something up – even something in excel or word would do, just so long as it shows what should be on each page. Then I can turn those into proper web pages so that Mike knows exactly what he needs to output to the pages.
Ryan,
[/quote:2goql4ja]
Yeah, I’ll do this, just need to sort out some time.
"Darcy":5cm86huo wrote:If i could rearrange the alphabet I would put U and I together.
[/quote:5cm86huo]The love you and Matt have for each other… it just brings a tear to my eye Darcy.
Any spare money from the dihl, is paying for Jenel to turn up on Thursday night and teach you to play hockey.
Sadly, unless anyone is feeling rich, we have to rely on Joe’s goodwill at this stage I suspect.
Does anyone have a signal for “I didn’t see it clearly, I’m not sure”?
Mike and I were refereeing last night, and there was a marginal icing call. I can’t remember now why it was marginal, I was back referee so maybe it was hit close to the centre line and I had a bad view of it.
Anyway, I wanted to pass the decision onto Mike to make, but my “I don’t know” signal was sticking my forearms out, palms up and shrugging at him across the rink. I suspect he took it as a wash-out signal!
"Chris":3jespqrx wrote:I would be willing to do goal judging occaisionally, but only on nights when I already have hockey, as I can’t afford to devote any additional evenings to sport.However, I don’t want to be a goal judge badly enough to organise myself, so somebody would have to tell me when to turn up, what to do, how to tie my shoes etc etc
[/quote:3jespqrx]Well, pick the game that you’re not playing on Sunday night, and go stand at either end next to the buzzer. If the puck goes over the line and into the net, push the buzzer. If the referee ever needs to talk to you, they’ll do so.
It’s also probably the best place to watch the game at our rink, outside of the scorebox. You don’t get a great view of the other end of the rink, but you get the best view of your own end. It’s great for watching breakaways and big goalie saves.
We’ve had games ‘possibly’ decided by lack of a goal judge and a referee making a very disputed call before. If players want to avoid that happening to them when they’re out on the ice, the only way to fix it is to turn up when they’re not playing and do the job. That applies to spectators as well – if you’re watching a game and there’s no one goal judging, put it on yourself to go do the job.
Interesting. Rangers tie it up 2-2 against Sabres. Ottawa is 2-1 up on the Devils, and Sharks leading Detroit. Could be heading for a few lower ranked teams upsetting the top ranked ones. If Sabres and Detroit get knocked out, I’m going to have to revert back to Ducks.
Damn Joe, you’re shading out posts by putting all those damn action shots in. What’s your favourite/best photo that you’ve taken of NHL action?
"Ryan":265v0pwi wrote:"Kyle":265v0pwi wrote:Michael was discussing with Stefan after the game whether or not intentional icing in the last couple of minutes could be called ‘delay of game’. I can’t find it in the case book, but perhaps Michael will find the reference.[/quote:265v0pwi][b:265v0pwi]My highly uneducated guess on the situation:[/b:265v0pwi]
I don’t think the rules/casebooks take running-time games into account – although I could be entirely wrong. Intentional icing would only be a problem in running time games so I’m not sure you’re going to find a rule on this in there. If I’m right, then we probably need to add another rule into the DIHA Rule Book to cover stuff like this.Ryan,
PS: Finding goal judges is a pain in the backside.
[/quote:265v0pwi]
Yeah that’s a good point.
I’ve never heard of it being called in any game that I’ve played in. I remember John Thomsen getting called for it at varsity games in inline hockey one year, but that was when he hit the puck out of the rink.
I guess I’d regard icing as a normal part of the game. Would you call a delay of game penalty if someone was blatantly offside and using that to slow the running time game down?
"Kyle":2v7e67ef wrote:Johnnies OB vs Bullfrogs. My pick: Bullfrogs, 5-1.[/quote:2v7e67ef]Ooh, Bullfrogs turn up with a seriously short line. No Noble, no Honore, no Kibbelwhite. Six skaters is a hard way to play hockey, and the ‘frogs just couldn’t get top intensity due to lack of energy. This was a good game, it was locked up at 2-2 at the end of the 2nd period, but Johnnies got a goal in the third with a nice slapshot unsighted by Schuck. Johnnies looked twice the team they did last week, Jackson added stability and Weir some attacking flair. Bullfrogs didn’t really get enough shots on net to expect to score many more than two, and will need to address their short lineup.
"Kyle":2v7e67ef wrote:Sharks vs Phantoms. My pick. I think it’ll be close until the last couple of minutes, finishing 4-2 to Phantoms.[/quote:2v7e67ef]Another close game – 3-2 to Phantoms, on a late goal to Christos. Phantoms were also pretty short – 7 skaters (pah! 7? That’s nothing). A nice goal to Wick off a couple of assists early on set them up, before Sharks came back with a couple of goals to take the lead, before Phantoms came on stronger in the last period. Sharks team is getting seriously large, with Neil being added to the lineup tonight – four extra players since the rosters were sent out. It’s enough to make an organiser pull his hair out, particularly when other teams are short.
There was a bit of discussion of refereeing calls in this game. We got one wrong, but it didn’t affect the game at all.
Michael was discussing with Stefan after the game whether or not intentional icing in the last couple of minutes could be called ‘delay of game’. I can’t find it in the case book, but perhaps Michael will find the reference.
There was also a bizarre incident when a Phantoms player shot on goal from the neutral zone, and it (I understand) went in. Both the referees were actually watching an offside Phantoms player leaving the bench. Neither of us saw the puck go in, and when I looked back, at least, a Sharks player was collecting the puck and everyone was standing around waiting for one of us to blow the whistle. The game continued, because neither of us had seen it go in.
So my interpretation:
1. We need goal judges for these games! The club has been discussing not having these, but they’re pretty important, but only occasionally. I actually went and arranged goal judges, but they didn’t seem to make it to the goal-judging area.
2. A phantoms player was offside, the phantoms shot therefore was an intentional offside, and should have gone back down to the phantoms low spot. That was what we referees missed doing.
3. The goal wouldn’t have been allowed had we seen it, because the play was offside.Good to see the competition between the teams being really close, and both games being up for grabs right until the buzzer.
Well, just because the DIHA isn’t paying for it at present, doesn’t mean it’s not costing, it just means that Ryan is being good enough to carry the cost for us all at present. Yay for Ryan.
That situation might change in the future however. So if we can get advertising, they should go towards the current costs of the site, and future costs – if the site was self-funding, that would be a good-start.
"dunedinicehockey":1us9a3sz wrote:You don’t need to follow Kyle’s advice as I’ve fixed it for everyone. Apart from Kyle who I suspect has just messed his time up
[/quote:1us9a3sz]Bastard.
To start off, everyone should go to profile (at the top), look and layout preferences, and change the time offset to +17. Don’t use the auto detect, as it returns -17 (bug there Ryan).
That will keep the forum on NZ time for y’all, not EST which is probably where the web server is.
Urgh. Cross-forum posting back and forth. My brain’s not up to that.
I think you’re right, you did mention something about having to fix things up after transferring things over.
Unless you get any negative feedback, I say go ahead. It looks just as good as this one in every way that I could see, better in a couple of ways, and if it gets rid of the spam, I’m fully in favour.
I suspect that’s somewhat come under the secretary’s job description.
But anyway, no I wouldn’t want to be going to all the meetings and writing stuff down. If I was to be there, I’d much rather knock heads together.
